Psycho-social mediators of reported annoyance and putative healthrelated symptoms associated with wind turbines: a discussion starter
Simon Chapman PhD FASSA
School of Public Health
University of Sydney
There has been a long history of sometimes protracted episodes of community concern about
environmental health risks said to be caused by new technologies. Some examples include the
telephone[1], television sets, computer screens, microwave ovens, electric blankets and other
household electrical appliances[2], mobile telephones and base stations[3, 4], fluoridation and
vaccination[5]. Wind turbines present a classic case example of a relatively new technology which
has generated claims about symptoms and illness said to be caused by exposure to the turbines.
There is large variability in self-reported annoyance and claims of health-related symptoms
claimed as being associated with exposure to wind turbines. Most people who are exposed are
not annoyed (eg: 723 of 754 – 96% residents in a recent Swedish study[6] , and indeed many
welcome turbines in their locality. Two studies have reported that those who live closest to
turbine developments are the most positive about them, particularly after the turbines are
operating[7, 8]. However a small minority of those exposed can become very annoyed and
some claim that exposure to turbines makes them ill. Studies have also reported the
paradoxical findings of dose-response relationships between sound exposure and noise
perception. For example, a Swedish cross-sectional study of 351 people living in a densely
populated area containing 16 turbines, found that compared to other sources of community
noise such as road traffic, many of those studied reported greater annoyance with turbine noise
than with louder other sources[9].
Such findings point to factors extrinsic to the noise generated by turbines which play important
mediating roles in whether or not those exposed are annoyed or express symptoms they claim
are caused by their exposure. Mediating factors are well known in studies of risk perception
and community outrage. However, the research literature on wind turbines reporting on this
variability and examining psycho-social factors associated with annoyance and health variables
is relatively small, and none of this research appears to have been published about Australian
communities with turbines.
Aircraft noise A similar phenomenon – community annoyance and self-reported health
symptoms relevant to aircraft noise - has been studied extensively[10] and was subject to
1
research at the beginning of the last decade in relation to questions being asked about
residents’ exposure to noise under flight paths into Sydney airport. This work concluded:

Self-reported physiological/health effects differed across areas with the same aircraft
noise level consistently with differences in psychological reaction across these areas.
Beliefs about expected change in future noise levels added to the level of self-reported
physiological symptoms predicted by noise level. These results are consistent with the
hypothesis that expectations regarding future noise levels contribute to the
physiological impact of noise, which may be reduced by addressing psychosocial factors
related to noise reaction[11].

Negative impacts of noise exposure on health and performance may result in part from
"learned helplessness," the syndrome typically produced by exposure to uncontrollable
events. People may perceive environmental noise to be uncontrollable, and several
effects of noise exposure appear to parallel "learned helplessness" deficits. Perceptions
about noise were better predicted by measures of perceived control than by noise
level. [12]
Wolsink[13] found that 46% of the variance between opposition and non-opposition to
turbines was explained by factors which included feelings about perceived visual intrusion of
wind turbines and perceptions about wind power as a clean source of energy. Pedersen &
Waye also found that respondents' attitudes to the visual impact of wind turbines on landscape
scenery influenced noise annoyance[9].
A Swedish grounded theory study[14] to generate conceptual models and hypotheses for
further testing, reported the views of 15 people living near turbines. Personal values about the
living environment appeared to influence perceptions about turbine noise, with those who saw
rural areas as suitable places for economic growth being indifferent to the noise, while those
who valued the countryside as a place that should be quiet and relaxing felt the noise intruded
on privacy. The authors hypothesized “that exposure from wind turbines would be more
negatively appraised in an area that is perceived as unspoiled than in an area where several
human activities take place.”[6] The same authors subsequently reported that variables like
“having renovated a dwelling” was associated with increased annoyance about turbines, and
that “people choose environments that harmonise with their self-concept and needs, and that
they remain in places that provide a sense of continuity.”[6]
2
Risk communication and perception researchers such as Sandman have produced matrices of
factors which have been often found to be associated with increased levels of community
“outrage” about putative environmental threats to health[15-18] . These factors have been
identified repeatedly in research on predictors of community outrage about alleged environmental
hazards arising from new and particularly “imposed” technology. Sandman, drawing on Covello
and others distinguishes primary from additional factors, with primary factors being those which
have been shown to be more strongly associated with increased levels of community concern. The
table below indicates the likely applicability of these factors to the case of predicting community
concern about wind farms.
Table: Primary and additional components predicting community outrage about putative
environmental risks to health: the case of wind turbines.
A: Primary factors
INCREASES OUTRAGE IF ...
REDUCES OUTRAGE IF ...
exposure coerced (among those
not electing to house turbines on
their land)

exposure voluntary (among
those electing to house turbines
on their land)
agent industrial

agent natural
agent exotic

agent familiar
agent memorable

agent forgettable

consequences dreaded (eg:
cancer, birth defects)
consequences not dreaded

consequences catastrophic (ie:
many people suddenly and badly
affected)
consequences chronic

true hazard unknowable (ie:
science largely “open”)

true hazard knowable (ie: broad
scientific consensus about
effects)
hazard controlled by others

hazard individually controlled
exposure unfair (ie: not all citizens
exposed equally)

exposure fair
3
sources untrustworthy (ie:
scientists, officials associated with
source)

sources trustworthy
process unresponsive (ie:
demands for action not quickly
met)

process responsive

affects general population
B: Additional factors
affects vulnerable population (eg:
children, retirees)
health effects delayed
effects immediate

substantial risk to future
populations
no threat to future populations

victims identifiable (ie: named
complainants)

victims statistical
not preventable
Preventable

few benefits
many benefits

substantial media attention

little media attention
opportunity for collective action

no opportunity for collective
action
( = applies strongly to wind turbines;  = likely to apply less strongly)
Some research questions about psychosocial aspects of community reactions to
wind turbines.
Can variations in Australian resident annoyance and self-reported health symptoms over
wind turbines be explained by the same variables found in international studies?
The above brief summary of some of the mediating factors found to be associated with
annoyance suggest a range of variables that could be explored in any planned Australian
studies.
4
Is payment for “hosting” wind turbines protective against annoyance?
Land owners are paid considerable money by wind energy providers for having turbines
installed on their land. Some of these landowners live on these properties, and so can live in
close proximity to the turbines. Those with multiple turbines on their land can derive significant
annual income, while neighbours living on nearby adjacent land with unfavourable topography
who may be able to see and hear the turbines on neighbouring properties are denied such
benefits. If turbines pose a threat to health and are “objectively” annoying, then the null
hypothesis would suggest that they should be equally annoying and pose equal health threats
to both those who deriving income from them and those who do not. Concern about the
impact of adjacent turbines on land values may cause The turbines thus become a symbol of
perceived “unfairness” and features of the turbines such as the “swoosh” sound that might
otherwise be unremarkable, may become anxiety-generating preoccupations.
Important questions arise about whether receipt of such payment may act as an “antidote” to
annoyance and the reporting of symptoms alleged to be associated with exposure to turbines.
Might payment be “protective” against annoyance and symptoms? This variable ought to be
included in any studies of annoyance and illness as a potentially important explanatory variable.
One recent Dutch study found that “people who benefit economically from wind turbines have a
significantly decreased risk of annoyance, despite exposure to similar sound levels” and that
“High turbine visibility enhances negative response, and having wind turbines visible from the
dwelling significantly increased the risk of annoyance. Annoyance was strongly correlated with
a negative attitude toward the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape.” [19]
Claims by those opposing windfarms that those who have contacts with energy companies
preventing them from speaking out about annoyance or illness need to be investigated. I have a
copy of one such contract which contains no such “gag” clauses and have been informed by
other energy companies and lawyers that confidentiality clauses which exist in some contracts
would not extinguish any common law rights to redress over any injuries or hurt said to be
caused by turbines, nor would it prevent any person who had signed such a contract from
talking publicly about their concerns.
Does the prevalence of annoyance and self-reported symptoms vary between turbines
installed by different companies?
Wolsink wrote critical reflections on the “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) syndrome as the most
common explanation for the differences in widespread community support for wind power
and local opposition to the turbines[13]. He is critical of NIMBYism as an adequate explanation
for opposition and emphasized that “institutional” factors (the behavior, communication and
5
policies of wind energy companies in turbine areas) is likely to be critical in understanding
community acceptance or opposition to turbines.
In light of Wolsink’s analysis, it would be interesting to examine different Australian
communities where different energy companies are operating to determine whether there are
any differences in the proportion of residents expressing annoyance and/or health symptoms.
Such a study might also investigate residents’ perceptions of corporate responsiveness and
openness.
Competing interests: None
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Aronsen, S., The Lancet on the telephone, 1876-1975 Medical History, 1977. 21: p. 69-87.
Savitz, D., Overview of epidemiological research on effects of electrical and magnetic fields and
cancer. Am Ind Hygiene Assoc J 1993. 54: p. 197-204.
Burgess, A., Cellular phones, public fears and a culture of precaution. 2004, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, S. and S. Wutzke, Not in our backyard: media coverage of community opposition to
mobile phone towers: an application of Sandman's outrage model of risk perception. Aust NZ J
Public Health, 1997. 21: p. 614-20.
Leask, J.A. and S. Chapman, An attempt to swindle nature: press anti-immunisation reportage
1993-1997. Aust N Z J Public Health, 1998. 22(1): p. 17-26.
Pedersen, E. and K. Persson Waye, Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and
well-being in different living environments. Occup Environ Med, 2007. 64(7): p. 480-6.
Warren, C.H., et al., Green on green:public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J
Experimental Planning and Management, 2005. 48(853-75.).
Kalledis, J.K., Social attitude towards wind energy applications in Greece. Energy Policy, 2005.
33(595-602.).
Pedersen, E. and K.P. Waye, Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise--a doseresponse relationship. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004. 116(6): p. 3460-70.
Morrell S, Taylor R, and L. D., A review of health effects of aircraft noise. Aust NZ J Pub Health,
1997. 21: p. 221-36.
Hatfield J, et al., The influence of psychological factors on self-reported physiological effects of
noise. Noise Health, 2001. 3: p. 1-13.
Hatfield J, et al., Human response to environmental noise: the role of perceived control. Int J
Behav Med, 2002. 9: p. 341-59.
Wolsink, M., Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited
significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 2000. 21: p. 49-64.
Pedersen, E., L.-M. Hallberg, and K. Wayne, Living in the vicinity of wind turbines - - a grounded
theory study. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2007. 4(49-63.).
Sandman, P., Responding to community outrage: strategies for effective risk communication.
1995, Fairfax, Va. : American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Sandman, P., Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. in: Covello, V.T., McCallum,
D.B., Pavlova, M.T. (eds.) Effective risk communication. 1989, New York: Plenum Press.
Sandman, P., Risk = Hazard + Outrage. A formula for effective risk communication (video). . 1989,
Fairfax, Va.: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
6
18.
19.
Covello, V., D. Von Winterfeldt, and P. Slovic, Communicating scientific information about health
and environmental risks: problems and opportunities from a social and behavioural perspective.
In: Covello, V., Lave, L., Maghissi, A., Uppuluri, V.R.R. (eds.) Uncertainties in risk assessment and
management. 1986, New York: Plenum.
Pedersen, E., et al., Response to noise from wind farms in The Netherlands. J Accoust Soc Am
2009. 126(634-43.).
7